A model of an elderly Neanderthal man on display in the Neanderthal Museum in Mettmann, Germany. Photograph: Action Press/Rex Features

Dr Penny Spikins is a young archaeologist at the University of York who focuses her research on social and cognitive evolution and prehistoric social dynamics, writing across a diverse range of subjects including the role of prestigious leaders and the occurrence of autism in past societies.In her new book, The Prehistory of Compassion, written with researchers Holly Rutherford and Andy Needham, she rejects the popular portrayal of Neanderthals as simple, unfeeling brutes and suggests that our closest ancient relatives may well have demonstrated a level of compassion that would put many modern humans to shame, caring for the infirm and the vulnerable for years at a time in organised groups.

What is the evidence for compassion in Neanderthals?

An example for Neanderthals is of a man found in the Shanidar cave in Iraq with one withered arm, deformities in both legs and a crushed skull which probably made him blind in his left eye. We think he survived for between 20 and 35 years, a length of time which shows that there must have been conscious care from the community, most likely undertaken by a group of people.

The long-term care of others is something that we may think of as being a modern human characteristic and for a long time the issue was quite contentious. At Sima de los Huesos in Spain, a Homo heidelbergensis [an ancestor of modern humans] child was found who suffered from lambdoid single suture craniosynostosis, where parts of the skull fuse together. He would have had a strange appearance and probably reduced mental capacity. However, the age of the child at death is estimated at between five and eight years, so this proves he would have been looked after for at least five years of his life by others in the same way as a normal child.

How does this compare with humans?

When we think of compassion, we think about empathising with one another but human compassion often goes beyond this, with people willing to take immense risks on behalf of others they care about. And human compassion can extend to outside our close groups and even to inanimate objects. For example, I may carry around a photograph of a loved one and this object will comfort me and bring out emotions in me.

Some Neanderthal personal ornaments have been found but it is only with modern humans that these objects are thought to be widespread.

Our fondness for pets and animals in general is an example of our compassion extending outside our species and so beyond what may be considered as useful for a group.

Is it possible that the compassion demonstrated by Neanderthals could have been exploited by early humans, contributing to their demise 30,000 years ago?

It's a very interesting idea. There is a theory that the facial features of early humans may have resembled that of a child-like Neanderthal and perhaps this means the Neanderthals would have viewed them with a certain amount of undeserved trust.

The 4% study raises many interesting questions. The idea that all interactions between humans and Neanderthals were instinctive and violent is unlikely to be true. There may well have been compassionate behaviour between the groups that led to them living harmoniously for periods of time.

Would it be fair to say that the level of compassion felt by Neanderthals falls somewhere in between humans and chimpanzees, for example?

I think it would be unfair to Neanderthals not to allow them the potential to be as compassionate as others. There have been cases of female chimpanzees carrying around the bodies of their dead children for weeks on end, in what is quite a powerful demonstration of grief, and this shows a level of compassion that could even be said to extend beyond that seen in much of human society today. So I think we need to be careful about putting compassion on some kind of continuous scale where one species is better than another and instead consider the individual examples.